Trump/Kim Summit: Breakthrough or Publicity Stunt?

Twitter: B4Liberty@USAB4L"Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
"Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
"Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
“They are what they hate.” - B4L

The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

This segment was about 10 times as long as it needed to be to communicate its semantic contents.

Ron sounds like he really wants to hop on board but for the reluctance to recant so much of his unwarranted show-filler complaining.

The most surprising takeaway is that 18 months in, Ron really doesn't have any sort of handle on Trump at all.

Going from Ron the campaigner to Ron the pundit is like going from The Matrix to its sequels.

It is probably because Trump is a progressive authoritarian-- the likes of Teddy Roosevelt, shredding the Constitution further in his ideals to Make America Great. One, that is anti-liberty no matter the temporary results, two he hasn't been that good absent being chaotic, and three it's Teddy Roosevelt's reincarnate.

I understand your inclinations towards protectionism but they are wrong.

The next authoritarian might have different inclinations. Treading heels to the Bolshevik reimagining (which Donald Trump has soundly established presidential precedence for).

That's even after granting him glory for some of his carte blanche actions that have resulted in positive things happening.

Donald Trump flippantly referring to world leaders as 'having a world to run' is not a misspoke antic. It is what he believes.

Those promoting liberty believe else wise.

“The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” --George Orwell

Originally Posted by AuH20

In terms of a full spectrum candidate, Rand is leaps and bounds above Trump. I'm not disputing that.

Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?--Donald Trump

It is probably because Trump is a progressive authoritarian-- the likes of Teddy Roosevelt, shredding the Constitution further in his ideals to Make America Great. One, that is anti-liberty no matter the temporary results, two he hasn't been that good absent being chaotic, and three it's Teddy Roosevelt's reincarnate.

I understand your inclinations towards protectionism but they are wrong.

The next authoritarian might have different inclinations. Treading heels to the Bolshevik reimagining (which Donald Trump has soundly established presidential precedence for). Even granting him glory for some of his carte blanche actions that have resulted in positive things happening.

Donald Trump flippantly referring to world leaders as 'having a world to run' is not a misspoke antic. It is what he believes.

Progressive? The real progressives are freaking out and losing their $#@! over him, in the process being exposed for the bullies they are and disempowered.

Protectionism? It's "protectionist" in the same sense that carrying a gun is protectionist. In other words, an enormously positive thing not being appreciated here at all by people who really need to get a much better understanding of what the current reality of US trade arrangements actually are. (We bend over, the world takes turns furiously.)

Authoritarian? He's an elected President acting within the laws and authorities delegated by the Constitution.

Carte Blanche? He's got a judge telling him he can't exercise clearly lawful powers (such as revoking an Obama EO) at every turn. Foreign policy and immigration are squarely within federal delegated powers even under the most strict interpretation of the Constitution. It's there in black and white.

I'm not even going to guess what you meant with the Bolshevik reimagining line. But I will venture to say that if you genuinely believe that he has acted flippantly or without calculation in any way here, or at any time, you don't understand what is going on at all. And here's where I have to ask: if Joe Redneck next door here in South Carolina can understand Trump implicitly, why can't the intellectuals here come even close to getting it?

It is something that has never been done by an American president before. Dr. Ron needs to cut it out with the labels. Nobody will ever measure up to his ideas of how things should be done. It’s getting done. Be a little bit thankful and move on.

"There are two freedoms - the false, where a man is free to do what he likes; the true, where he is free to do what he ought."~~Charles Kingsley

There is no need to hide, really. The demeanor of the president is that of a King.

I believe the, 'We have a world to run,' comment was crystal evidence of his inclinations.

If David Rockefeller said that you would rightly be calling him a globalist.

Where is the factual basis for such slanted characterization?

I believe the factual basis is evident in his demeanor and statements.

Specifically though, "a world to run," John Bolton's appointment, his protectionist comments/policies, his opiate declarations and dick waving wastes of monies (and a $#@! ton of other things I don't care to remember).

Progressive? The real progressives are freaking out and losing their $#@! over him, in the process being exposed for the bullies they are and disempowered.

The Progressive Era, from 1900 to 1917, was all about making advances toward a better society. By the turn of the 20th century, the country had seen a large increase of immigrants, the growth of unregulated big business, increased labor unrest, corruption and inefficiencies within government and many other social problems. Members of the early Progressive movement, working mostly at the local and state level, included former Populists, followers of the Social Gospel movement, European socialist immigrants and muckraking journalists (much like today's investigative reporters).

As the Progressive movement gained momentum, urban middle-class reformers and women played a large role in creating public awareness and organizing toward Progressive goals. Progressive reformers were united in their belief that government's laissez-faire, or hands-off, approach was no longer sufficient and demanded increased government involvement to correct America's turn-of-the-century problems.
What Were the Goals of the Progressives?
In very broad terms, Progressives worked to fix social, economic and political problems. Social reformers addressed the moral well-being of society through the push to outlaw alcohol, restrict immigration, improve living conditions in the cities, expand public education and end prostitution and child labor.

Public reformers worked to make government more responsive to the people by attempting to end abuses of power in urban politics and government, make city governments more efficient and broaden political participation through democratic reforms, such as the direct election of senators and women's suffrage, meaning the right to vote.

Wow, that's a lot! Maybe the question is better asked, what weren't Progressives trying to accomplish?

Theodore Roosevelt, Friend of Progressives
Theodore Roosevelt became president after William McKinley was shot in 1901. Roosevelt was open to Progressive calls for reform and brought attention to Progressive issues at the national level. His activist political agenda expanded the role of the presidency and increased government regulation of economic affairs. His no-nonsense approach endeared him to his supporters. He easily won re-election in 1904 and saw his victory as a mandate from the American people to push forward with his Progressive agenda. He chose not to seek re-election in 1908 and handpicked his successor, fellow Republican William Taft. They would later split, however, based on Taft's more conservative approach. Roosevelt would run as a Progressive Party candidate in the 1912 election.

Protectionism? It's "protectionist" in the same sense that carrying a gun is protectionist. In other words, an enormously positive thing not being appreciated here at all by people who really need to get a much better understanding of what the current reality of US trade arrangements actually are. (We bend over, the world takes turns furiously.)

By all means, change my mind.

Understand that while the piper will eventually be called home, the debt will be honestly defaulted on (that is, creditors can $#@! off). And indeed, for living beyond 'our' means, the United States will live beneath its means.

Cheap items are not a bad thing.

Authoritarian? He's an elected President acting within the laws and authorities delegated by the Constitution.

Absurdity.

Carte Blanche? He's got a judge telling him he can't exercise clearly lawful powers (such as revoking an Obama EO) at every turn. Foreign policy and immigration are squarely within federal delegated powers even under the most strict interpretation of the Constitution. It's there in black and white.

Naturalization or immigration?

You argue for a king, of sorts.

Even with decent gains (in a $#@! field), I'm not sure I would ever endorse it.

It seems to conflict with Original Intent (and more).

I'm not even going to guess what you meant with the Bolshevik reimagining line. But I will venture to say that if you genuinely believe that he has acted flippantly or without calculation in any way here, or at any time, you don't understand what is going on at all. And here's where I have to ask: if Joe Redneck next door here in South Carolina can understand Trump implicitly, why can't the intellectuals here come even close to getting it?

A lack of airplane glue.

Seriously though, for me, any authoritarian is met with disdain (D, R, etc.) He's Obama's unpolished brother. Give him a couple more years and he will get the swing of being a certified whore (though him bucking isn't out of question).

“The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” --George Orwell

Originally Posted by AuH20

In terms of a full spectrum candidate, Rand is leaps and bounds above Trump. I'm not disputing that.

Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?--Donald Trump

It is probably because Trump is a progressive authoritarian-- the likes of Teddy Roosevelt, shredding the Constitution further in his ideals to Make America Great. One, that is anti-liberty no matter the temporary results, two he hasn't been that good absent being chaotic, and three it's Teddy Roosevelt's reincarnate.

I understand your inclinations towards protectionism but they are wrong.

The next authoritarian might have different inclinations. Treading heels to the Bolshevik reimagining (which Donald Trump has soundly established presidential precedence for).

That's even after granting him glory for some of his carte blanche actions that have resulted in positive things happening.

Donald Trump flippantly referring to world leaders as 'having a world to run' is not a misspoke antic. It is what he believes.